Email

For all of the advances in technology in the last couple of decades, email remains a fact of college life. So, based on hard-won experience, a few public service announcements about email:

“Reply all” is a trap. Use this sparingly, and only ever on purpose. An accidental selection of “reply all” can send a message to folks you didn’t intend, creating new issues. People are generally better about this than they used to be, but every so often, it crops up.

Emails can be subpoenaed. Should that happen, there’s no guarantee that they’ll be read in context. In fact, it’s entirely likely that they’ll be ripped out of context. When I get the late-night extended nastygram, instead of returning fire, I remind myself of this. When in doubt, write as if a hostile attorney were combing through it, looking for something to use against you. It’s sad and frustrating that we live in that world, but we do.

Emails can be forwarded. Keep in mind the unintended reader.

Sarcasm is tricky.

Irony is even trickier.

When you address three or more people by name in an email, looking for a response, it can be hard to know who should go first. That can lead to the same kind of error that happens in baseball when the left fielder thinks the center fielder will catch the ball and the center fielder thinks the left fielder will catch the ball. Neither does, and the ball lands with an embarrassing plop. It’s best to specify, one way or another, the person you’d like to respond first.

Don’t add unnecessary layers to the “cc” line. Generally speaking, the lower the organizational level at which a problem can be solved, the better.

Avoid the litany. This is the complaint that includes phrases like “this is yet another example of …” and then folds a half dozen other issues into the complaint. Emails like those are demotivating, because they convey the sense that the sender is simply mad at the world. Once you’re known for that, folks will start tuning you out, even when you’re right.

One issue per email.

Brevity is a virtue.

When possible, avoid implying motive, even through tone. There’s a meaningful difference between “How the hell did you let this happen?” and “I’m confused. Could you shed some light?” The latter allows for the possibility of an innocent and/or face-saving explanation. I’ve seen enough apparent outrages that turned out to be misunderstandings to be wary of assuming the worst from the start. When you’re on the receiving end of an unfounded presumption of guilt, it leaves a bitter aftertaste. Over time, it erodes trust and leads to a culture of defensiveness, rather than problem solving. Best to assume goodwill until proven otherwise.

When email conflicts start to escalate, sometimes it’s helpful to shift venue and instead have an in-person conversation or meeting. It’s harder to demonize someone to their face. And it’s easier to pick up on nuances of tone when you have body language, intonation and the various nonverbal clues. I’ve certainly had the experience of realizing, in real time, that I chose the wrong word. Seeing it in real time allows for immediate correction. In email, you might not know it until you get the offended response that suddenly becomes an issue in itself. Sometimes an in-person conversation leads to the discovery of a misunderstanding at the root of an escalating email conflict, allowing the conflict to resolve without anybody losing. That’s one of the best uses of in-person meetings.

Wise and worldly readers, what PSAs around email would you add?